It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

There are 20 comments on the Asheville Citizen-Times story from Mar 15, 2009, titled It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate. In it, Asheville Citizen-Times reports that:

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Asheville Citizen-Times.

KAB

United States

#107927 Jan 17, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Maz does not do gradual, it's all or nothing and both at the same time. What ever fits the mood or idea du jour.
Well have they.
Some study thus put some manova or whatever tool on the subjective experience described by scientists, that variations are detrimental.
Wel KAB not that i'm aware of.
I was just pointing out that mazhere is not consistent, except in calling people names, that is.
So in her case a bit more variation would not be considered detrimental by the subjective experience of the scientist here.
You pick any statistical tool and start calculating.
Maz has openly declared being here to pull your chain (i.e., not interested in resolving anything). Why do you allow it by cooperating rather than relegating to ignore-ance?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107928 Jan 17, 2013
wiki abiogenesis:
quote

however, the inorganic composition of all cells differ from that of modern sea water, which led Mulkidjanian and colleagues to reconstruct the "hatcheries" of the first cells combining geochemical analysis with phylogenomic scrutiny of the inorganic ion requirements of universal components of modern cells. The authors conclude that ubiquitous, and by inference primordial, proteins and functional systems show affinity to and functional requirement for K+, Zn2+, Mn2+, and phosphate. Geochemical reconstruction shows that the ionic composition conducive to the origin of cells could not have existed in what we today call marine settings but is compatible with emissions of vapor-dominated zones of what we today call inland geothermal systems. Under the anoxic, CO2-dominated primordial atmosphere, the chemistry of water condensates and exhalations near geothermal fields would resemble the internal milieu of modern cells. Therefore, the precellular stages of evolution may have taken place in shallow "Darwin-ponds" lined with porous silicate minerals mixed with metal sulfides and enriched in K+, Zn2+, and phosphorus compounds.[68][69]

end quote

montmorillonite/octalite/carpe ntratras soil etc. comes in at this point.

KAB we allready discussed that genesis makes no differentiation between mankind and animals, they are having the same term creatures/lifespirits.
So the first part would be written as a ranking system by a Priestly source and copied from the Marduk account at Ebla (were one such account was found)
The second part starting in the SS with the second sentence of 2:4 would be by a Jahwist source making clear what mankinds role would be.
Adam (fertile soil) gets created first here, and than the plants and animals. Eve (Havah wide birth) get's created last of all.(apropos also found in really old Babylonian myths.)

But i would add here that we are used to devide everything in strict communities, where the hebrew book however shows three kids of law(also attested in historic studies)vigorating and lots of cultural exchange. It gives thus an image of all that was known then including the influences.

And for the various interpretation you must read a book of 1,8 million pages. The oral Torah.

Good luck with this DATA. It should keep you occupied for at least a while.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107929 Jan 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for a VERY thoughtful post.
Whatever reaches beyond the data is not true science except for that which constitutes hypotheses and is unwaveringly recognized as only ideas unless confirmed correct by data. Hypotheses give direction to science.
You betray a deviation from true science when you refer to the fossil record showing a "changing lineage of organisms". The true science reference is "different organisms thru time yet with similarities". The latter phrase doesn't presume mechanism(s). It is, however, proper to hypothesize a "lineage".
Notice that none of this has anything to do with me or my beliefs. It is simply scientific rigor. True science is indeed one of the best methods for describing the physical world around us.
Finally and unfortunately, religion is thoroughly infected! However, truth completely harmonious with science can and should be found there too.
God allmighty KAB, i see a sudden brainwave took you, flooding us with information.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107930 Jan 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Maz has openly declared being here to pull your chain (i.e., not interested in resolving anything). Why do you allow it by cooperating rather than relegating to ignore-ance?
Well i missed the statement Maz made to that effect.
I take it was general in intent?
But i could not miss the tone and i have been doing some windng myself. Maz was in any case intent on those paradigms to the point of developing a blind spot.

But it is a waste of mind and negative feelings should not be allowed in any case, indeed. It drags everything down.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107932 Jan 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
"The facts" is seldom a comprehensive/exhaustive entity. Therefore, a statement may not explain (fit) the "available" facts and yet still be true as long as it is not in direct conflict with them. If it is not in direct conflict then an alternative which fits the available facts does not refute the other. A statement which identifies facts in direct conflict with the other refutes it.
That statement by itself is reasonable, but as answer to Dan i'm not so sure.
Or someone might just be a bit sceptic after witnessing the way facts get mutilated here, data mangled and both killed of.
KAB

United States

#107933 Jan 17, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Yada, yada, yada. I expected nothing more. They aren't generalized. The creation story is composed ot two different stories. One puts man created first and one has man created after everything else, if I recall right. One has the earth created in seven days and the other has it in one day. I am not going to get into this with you. I have been down this road a hundred times with a hundred different people, some of which had an authoritative knowledge of the Bible and they couldn't explain it as anything more than two contradictory stories. They teach this in literature classes as well or didn't you know that. Books have been written about this and other biblical errors and inconsistencies. As I say, I noticed it on my own.
All you want to do is fence of trivialities. It is a common reaction when something you believe in is challenged.
If you want to believe that the Bible is an infallible record from creation onward, I don't. Have at it. But don't try to shove that fiction down my throat when I can read for myself and see these inconsistencies and errors.
By the way, I don't know what you mean by data. Because from what I have seen of your past posts, they have been very much without.
You won't listen to me. Perhaps you will listen to yourself. I quote, "something you believe in is challenged." Response, "I am not going to get into this with you." I have taken no such position (1 Peter 3:15). Which of us has taken our beliefs off the examination table?
KAB

United States

#107934 Jan 17, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Something tells me you are aware of some of this, but are in denial regarding the significance. It does shatter your view of a Bible as a confirmed accurate source of information.
If you want to use the Bible as a science book, don't be surprised when that is brought back to your doorstep. It is a theology book, full of some history, poetry, and the structure of a fine morality. I have said this before and it still stands. The value of the Bible is not diminished by the fact that it is not word for word literal translation of historical events and Gods dictation. If it is that weak, Christian religions are in trouble.
Professed Christian religions ARE in trouble BECAUSE they don't adhere to the Bible.
KAB

United States

#107935 Jan 17, 2013
Lililth_Satans_Bore wrote:
<quoted text>you christards wouldn't recognize real data if you tripped over it
But you won't try me, will you? Why is that do you think, especially when it would be so easy to provide a single specific example?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#107936 Jan 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You won't listen to me. Perhaps you will listen to yourself. I quote, "something you believe in is challenged." Response, "I am not going to get into this with you." I have taken no such position (1 Peter 3:15). Which of us has taken our beliefs off the examination table?
Incorrect, every time you refer to your book of myths you are taking a position, and when challenged you pretend it's an "attack" on you. Your bible is mythology, nothing more, face facts.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107937 Jan 17, 2013
MAAT wrote:
Mazhere how can you at the same time accept really old dates, and use the findings (though twisted)to suit your creo-paradigm...and claim that nothing can be true since there was no approved observer around.
That has been your stopgap refutation everytime.
I AM NOT A YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST...QUACKER! Your argument demonstates you have been reduced to desperation with no scientific refute to speak to. IOW substanceless desperation, and I love it. Thanks!

Your great refute... Maz knows dating of fossils is biased. Good one you evotard! How scientifically ignorant are you? Heaps!

So thanks Dan. Ha Ha!!!! I love nothing more than to sustain a point and leave evolutionists babbling on with the background noise of confusion and desperation. So thanks for my jollies for the day.

Point made. Creos have excellent data to support the creation of birds and their flourishing and being varied 212mya suporting a fixed paradigm, while evos have mythical theropods and ancestry to whatever goes. Good one, you evos!

YOUR GREAT FLUFF DEMONSTRATES YOU ARE A LOOSER, WITH NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE TO SAY.. STILL.....

Level 2

Since: May 12

Bellevue, WA

#107938 Jan 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
But you won't try me, will you? Why is that do you think, especially when it would be so easy to provide a single specific example?
tell me your depth of training and or education in microbiology....

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107939 Jan 17, 2013
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>Isn't that what I just said? THe tire tracks are observable. I don't know what vechicle it was, just that it was a vehicle.
So we put a forensic specialist on the scene, that will tell us what make, and by the wear and tear of the tires, or the lack thereof also more or less what year, or could lead us to the factory and inquire, and otherwise ask around if people had seen this make of car. Or look for more tracks, whether it leaked oil etc.
Likewise a fossil expert can tell one lots of information.
If they talk about statistic error or rather slight deviations in f.i. the example of calculated waterlevels deviating from observed actual ones, it is usually because some law of averages would have been used.
But usually a percentage of such deviations due to standardisation is known to all and allowed for. And if someone came forward with the correct one they would simply include it. All the happier for getting closer.
None would make an argument with it! Or of it!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#107940 Jan 17, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I AM NOT A YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST...QUACKER!.....
If you were not, you'd not use the same canards and fallacies. You'd also know that 4 billion years is a lot of time for things to change, and demonstrating no barrier means things today were a lot different back then, and probably simpler, and more efficient. In short, you'd stop making a complete fool of yourself if you were not a YEC.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107941 Jan 17, 2013
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I AM NOT A YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST...QUACKER! Your argument demonstates you have been reduced to desperation with no scientific refute to speak to. IOW substanceless desperation, and I love it. Thanks!
Your great refute... Maz knows dating of fossils is biased. Good one you evotard! How scientifically ignorant are you? Heaps!
So thanks Dan. Ha Ha!!!! I love nothing more than to sustain a point and leave evolutionists babbling on with the background noise of confusion and desperation. So thanks for my jollies for the day.
Point made. Creos have excellent data to support the creation of birds and their flourishing and being varied 212mya suporting a fixed paradigm, while evos have mythical theropods and ancestry to whatever goes. Good one, you evos!
YOUR GREAT FLUFF DEMONSTRATES YOU ARE A LOOSER, WITH NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE TO SAY.. STILL.....
...IT GOT YOUR KNICKERS IN A WAD. BECAUSE THAT'S WERE YOU LEFT THE SOAP!
pff nothing but verbal diarrhea.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107942 Jan 17, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were not, you'd not use the same canards and fallacies. You'd also know that 4 billion years is a lot of time for things to change, and demonstrating no barrier means things today were a lot different back then, and probably simpler, and more efficient. In short, you'd stop making a complete fool of yourself if you were not a YEC.
I came accross a site that told the story of a christian going to a meeting where they were very gently told that evolution and believe do not bite and that thus the bible might tell a story that could even be 30,000 years old.
Well shocked by '30,000' years, they read up and concluded that evolution had it wrong. It was older!

Portee of the story would thus be that they get misinformed in the first place (quotes from 1977, 1982 mostly) but do not put the fault with themselves but with the evolution adherers and science.
Well and that's how you get types like Mazhere. Theist evo's with creation paradigms that do not hold water.
KAB

United States

#107943 Jan 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is nothing but the gradual accumulation of variations over time. So if yo are not questioning that, why are you questioning evolution?
For one reason only - an ancient book which you rely on in faith does not mention evolution, so you think it could not be the mechanism of "creation". The same book never makes it clear that the earth is spherical, never mentions bacterial causes of disease, never discusses electricity or the existence of other galaxies, but you do not seem to have a problem with those.
Why evolution?
If you define evolution as "the gradual accumulation of variations over time" I do not question it.
KAB

United States

#107944 Jan 17, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What else would you ask it to offer?
Evolution proposed a mechanism by which (already) observed differences had shown up in the fossil record between existing creatures and fossil ones, changes that became greater the further back in time (deeper in the strata) you went.
Evolution predicted that such changes would continue to fit into a pattern of increasing divergence with modern forms as one went back in time, along with convergence of contemporary forms with each other as you went back in time.
For example, mammals would converge with reptiles until they were indistinguishable. Well KAB, we now have a fossil record showing step by step that convergence of mammals to reptiles, with a whole series of intermediates. Exactly what evolution predicted. We even see the gradual change in the jawbones of the "mammal like reptiles" (Synapsids)into a single jawbone and 3-boned middle ear. Step by little step. That is macro evolution - lots of microevolution strung together.
In the same succession of fossils, we see the opening up of a hole (fenestra) behind the jaw, the development of a double palate separating the nasal and mouth cavities, and the development of differentiated dentition. These are all characteristics not found in other vertebrates (reptiles, birds, amphibians, fish)...but we see them gradually emerging in this one group. Mammals.
That is a data, KAB. Observed, measured, catalogued.
We have pelycosaurs and later therapsids and later still the earliest "true mammals".
Similarly, we have successions of fossils showing gradual change including the link between modern humans and out ape-hominid ancestors.
The best we can do? Well, now we can also overlay the genomic data and discover that it independently matches the same nested hierarchy of the fossil record. Slam dunk confirmation, beyond any reasonable doubt. Evolution happened.
You give a good description of what could be the output of a design sequence/process. Why did you not mention the 3 boned fish ear, or the numerous times that someone has professed the eye has evolved? If true about the eye, that's a most interesting convergence. Slam dunk confirmation of evolution as the only ingredient? I don't think so.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107945 Jan 17, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were not, you'd not use the same canards and fallacies. You'd also know that 4 billion years is a lot of time for things to change, and demonstrating no barrier means things today were a lot different back then, and probably simpler, and more efficient. In short, you'd stop making a complete fool of yourself if you were not a YEC.
You make a fool of yourself by demonstrating you are clueless. Not all creos are YECs and if you weren't such a fool you would already know that without having to be spoon fed.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#107946 Jan 17, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect, every time you refer to your book of myths you are taking a position, and when challenged you pretend it's an "attack" on you. Your bible is mythology, nothing more, face facts.
Why do you say that? You have no idea of science. You follow what you are told.

Your disbelief would be your problem and inability to understand that you already believe in myths as an evolutionist eg mythical theropods, endogenization of virus, unobserved abiogenesis, mysterioius powerful dark matter that is unobserved and the resulting multiple dimensions that are necesary with it. No problem for you, Hey?.

TOE is likewise a myth spread in many books much of which have been actually falsified. Nothing in the bible can be falsified but much has been confirmed.

What can you present that can actually 'falsify' any statement the bible makes, given you know nothing about inorganic life forms and what they can or can't do?

Is that the problem? You believe that man is not special and life is strewn around the universe but it can only be organic life because that is the current limit of scientific knowledge.

You just love to confuse theists and creationsits don't you? You are a fool, and a bigotted one, at that.

Does your religious bigotry end if a theist is an evolutionist?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#107947 Jan 17, 2013
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
If you define evolution as "the gradual accumulation of variations over time" I do not question it.
That's not how it's defined, that's what evolution is.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min DanFromSmithville 161,841
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 11 min Denisova 1,688
No Place For ID? 17 min Denisova 91
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 hr Chimney1 18,851
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 13 hr yoo 895
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Sun Paul Porter1 13,692
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Sun Kong_ 178,596
More from around the web